High-quality trademark data is critical for brands and trademark professionals to confidently build and protect their valuable IP assets. However, several misconceptions exist about its nature and quality.<\/p>\n
Clarivate\u2122 experts Robert Reading, Senior Director of Product Management and Mihnea Hanganu,Vice President of Product Management, recently debunked five common myths surrounding trademark data to help trademark professionals ensure they are getting the most from their data.<\/p>\n
Watch The Trademark Data Advantage: Separating Fact from Fiction now<\/a>.<\/p>\n While many believe that trademark data<\/a> is readily available in digital format worldwide, this is far from the truth. Trademark digitization varies significantly across countries; some nations have advanced digital systems, while others still rely on paper gazettes.<\/p>\n \u201cMost trademark data is not available electronically,\u201d Hanganu said. “More than half of countries don’t have a solid digital collection available yet.”<\/p>\n Through an expansive network and global team, Clarivate employs manual, on-site, data collection methods in countries like Nigeria, where digital access is limited, but Hanganu also highlighted that even in major jurisdictions the digitization process is ongoing.<\/p>\n \u201cIt should not be assumed that all data is accessible electronically,\u201d he said, \u201cIf not properly accounted for, this disparity can create gaps in analysis.\u201d<\/p>\n Even with advanced IT systems and e-filing options, trademark data can still suffer from errors. Hanganu said, \u201cBeing digitized doesn\u2019t mean it is necessarily 100% accurate and up to date.\u201d<\/p>\n Automation helps process large volumes of data but can also introduce errors.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile trademark offices now offer e-filing options, and IP offices generally have advanced IT systems in place, they’re still mainly based on a manual workflow. This means there are still backlogs and errors,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n When mistakes occur, human intervention is necessary to correct them. Clarivate, for example, has a rigorous error correction process and ensures that data is as current as possible by monitoring publication schedules and updating records comprehensively. Last year alone, Clarivate found and corrected errors in 6% of all incoming EUIPO trademark records and 7.81% of USPTO trademark records.<\/p>\n The risk of outdated or incorrect data remains if not managed properly. Reading explained, \u201cMachines are very good at churning through data, but they\u2019re not necessarily great at making decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n Completeness in trademark data is not just about the number of countries covered; It involves several dimensions, including:<\/p>\n Robert Reading said: \u201cCounting the number of countries is nowhere near adequate in terms of figuring out if a collection is complete or not. In fact, the definition of completeness is a little bit more complicated.\u201d<\/p>\n A complete trademark data set should include detailed fields such as trademark owner information, filing dates, and relevant classifications. It should also be searchable and categorized effectively for efficient data interrogation.<\/p>\n Clarivate\u2019s harmonization efforts ensure that trademarks can be found across multiple jurisdictions, providing a global perspective. In 2023, our teams enhanced 35.45% of all incoming trademark records for precision and to ensure data-optimization.<\/p>\n Legacy data is often underestimated. Historical trademark records are crucial for understanding brand evolution, chain of title and potential opposition risks.<\/p>\n Even expired or abandoned trademarks can hold legal significance in disputes.<\/p>\n Robert Reading said, \u201cThe longer you’ve been collecting data, the better chance you have of having a more historic collection. Clarivate has a history that goes back a hundred years now, so we\u2019ve got a lot of old records. It\u2019s very important.\u201d Access to such comprehensive historical data can provide a significant advantage in trademark searching and protection.<\/p>\n High-quality trademark data<\/a> is essential for searches and ongoing trademark monitoring, managing renewals, identifying potential infringements, and analyzing portfolio strength.<\/p>\n Reading said: \u201cQuality has an impact far beyond searching. It’s important for all sorts of other things, such as managing a portfolio, looking at renewals, transferring records from one IP system to another and being able to check the details.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s also important from a watching point of view that quality measurements include timeliness and being up to date. Unconfirmed quality is bad news if you are risk averse.\u201d<\/p>\n Timely and frequent data collection is vital for trademark watching<\/a> to catch conflicts early. Outdated data can lead to missed oppositions or legal actions, putting trademarks at risk.<\/p>\n The full webinar, The Trademark Data Advantage<\/em>, is available on-demand now<\/a>. Don\u2019t miss your opportunity to watch our experts discuss these topics and more.<\/p>\n If you would like to know more about our trademark search<\/a> and watch solutions<\/a>, why not speak to our team<\/a>? We\u2019d be happy to help!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" High-quality trademark data is critical for brands and trademark professionals to confidently build and protect their valuable IP assets. However, several misconceptions exist about its nature and quality. Clarivate\u2122 experts…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":260197,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2142,706],"tags":[234,948,40,1218,1209],"class_list":["post-283345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-brand-ip","category-trademarks","tag-analytics","tag-data","tag-ip-intelligence","tag-trademark-data","tag-trademarks"],"acf":[],"lang":"en","translations":{"en":283345},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"pll_sync_post":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/283345","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=283345"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/283345\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":287031,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/283345\/revisions\/287031"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/260197"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=283345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=283345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=283345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Myth 1: Most global trademark data is accessible electronically from the original source<\/h3>\n
Myth 2: Digitized trademark data is consistently accurate and up to date<\/h3>\n
Myth 3: The completeness of a trademark data set is determined by jurisdictional coverage (the number of countries represented)<\/h3>\n
\n
Myth 4: Old trademark records are largely insignificant<\/h3>\n
Myth 5: Trademark data quality only matters for searches<\/h3>\n
Key takeaways:<\/h3>\n
\n